I didn't even know that I Am Legend was based on a book or that three other adaptations had been made of it.

Read it! Its by Matheson and he's just fantastic.

And Cerrinea and DPW are right, we discussed this to death through like 4 pages a few months ago._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 4:16 pm

Message

ReepicheepMaster

Joined: 05 Feb 2008Posts: 7613Location: Sailing into the unknown

^ I probably wasn't paying much attention to the I Am Legend discussion since I hadn't seen the movie(s).

I might check out the book sometime though..._________________
Where sky and water meet,
Where the waves grow sweet,
Doubt not, Reepicheep,
To find all you seek,
There is the utter east.

Posted: Wed Nov 13, 2013 5:43 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Reepicheep wrote:

I might check out the book sometime though...

Its a fantastic book. The story in question is a novella, but its also a book of short stories on top of that so I think its worth trying out._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 12:11 am

Message

Dog-Poop_WalkerMaster

Joined: 28 Jan 2012Posts: 1481Location: Soul of Cinder

If you're not familiar with Richard Matheson, he wrote most of the good episodes of the Twilight Zone._________________The spirit can die when the force that's crushing it is great enough. By raining bullets down on the silent faces, already turned away from the world, you thought you could destroy the face of our truth. But we have faith in a different force. That hopeless hope is what sustains us now. My comrades are more numerous than your bullets, and more patient than your executioners.

Posted: Thu Nov 14, 2013 8:46 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1943Location: Ontario, Canada

Dog-Poop_Walker wrote:

Here's a comment I made elsewhere about why 3D is a cheap gimmick:

People who criticize 3D are often seen as going against innovation and calling it a gimmick is akin to people who want movie to return to the silent film era.

Unlike 3D, the invention of sound tracks and color film in movies actually added something to movies that was not there before. 3d does add an "extra dimension" to the film, but it is not utilized for anything other than making an object in the foreground appear to stand out from the background. In reality the movie is not actually in "3d" since it's being projected onto a flat 2d background and the perception of depth is just an optical illusion, a technique that was first utilized in art hundreds of years before the existence of motion pictures.

3d could actually be used in an inventive way by projecting onto screens that are not flat, or by showing two different images layered on top of each other, but it doesn't do any of these things. It just takes an actor filmed against a fake CGI background and separates them which only serves to make it even more noticeable that the background and the objects the character interacts with are not real.

I like 3D, though I'll admit that in the vast majority of cases, it does little more than make the movie pretty (or, prettier). Like when I saw TPM, I thought the 3D made it look great, and added a degree of realism to some elements (like windows and holograms, which I discussed on this thread long ago when TPM 3D came out).

Others, like Jurassic Park, got absolutely nothing from 3D. I barely noticed the 3D in that, but I was just happy to see Jurassic Park on the big screen (I was too young when it came out originally).

On the complete opposite end of the spectrum was Tron: Legacy, which used 3D as part of the story (just like in The Wizard of Oz, how colour was important to the storytelling process). That 3D was amazing, and added something concrete to the experience._________________"I'm...from Earth."

I saw Thor: The Dark World yesterday. I loved it. While the plot was a little muddy and the villain underdeveloped, it was an all around fun film. I see that some of you thought it was too Loki-heavy, and I expected to agree, since I saw absolutely no reason for him to be the fab favorite that he is. But, shockingly enough, I thought he was the best dang part of the whole movie. Who knew._________________All things die, Anakin Skywalker, even stars burn out.

Those without swords can still die upon them

Posted: Tue Nov 19, 2013 9:53 pm

Message

Caedus_16Master

Joined: 15 Apr 2008Posts: 5226Location: Korriban

Queen Padmè Skywalker wrote:

I saw Thor: The Dark World yesterday. I loved it. While the plot was a little muddy and the villain underdeveloped, it was an all around fun film. I see that some of you thought it was too Loki-heavy, and I expected to agree, since I saw absolutely no reason for him to be the fab favorite that he is. But, shockingly enough, I thought he was the best dang part of the whole movie. Who knew.

The only problem with Loki is that he's the most interesting (and only recurring) villain that Marvel films have right now.

Still, he is freaking awesome and I love every second he is onscreen.

And while Thor films will never be brilliant they'll always be a blast, that's what I've decided on._________________Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.

So what's the deal with Pacific Rim? I've heard a lot of people rave about it, but from what little I know it doesn't sound that interesting._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 7:23 am

Message

Alan Skywalker VMaster

Joined: 10 Apr 2011Posts: 632

Watched Man of Steel last night and absolutely loved it.

I have to say, though, it took me a while to realize who was playing Lois; Amy Adams looked so different from her appearances in Enchanted and Night at the Museum: Battle of the Smithsonian.

Posted: Mon Nov 25, 2013 9:08 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1943Location: Ontario, Canada

Spent last week in Budapest, and so I saw a number of movies on the two trans-atlantic flights.

Zero Dark Thirty: Dark, gritty, too-real. Really well made. The way they depicted real acts of terrorism really hit home how scary it can be.

The Lone Ranger: I'm honestly not sure what I make of this. I enjoyed it, but also spent much of the movie confused about what I was watching. Liked Johnny Depp, but I might've preferred it he was less goofy.

Red 2: Not as good as the first, but still amazingly fun.

Django Unchained: I'd seen this before, but don't own it so I thought I'd watch it again. Lots of racisms obviously (it's about slavery before the civil war, so of course it is). I've heard jokes about how Tarantino makes movies simply as an excuse to write and say the N-word with mere impunity, and this movie does nothing to debunk that theory. But it was uber-violent and a lot of fun._________________"I'm...from Earth."

@Life: I saw Pacific Rim and enjoyed it. It's a godzilla movie. If you like big monster movies, you'd enjoy it._________________
"I believe toys resonate with us as humans, we can hold them them, it's tactile, real! They are totems for our extended beliefs and imaginations. A fetish for ideas that hold as much interest and passion as old religious relics for some. We display them in our homes. They show who we are. They are signals for similar thinking people. A way we connect with each other...and I guess thats why I do toys. That connection." -Ashley Wood

Really, a godzilla movie? Somehow that never came up. All I seem to hear relates to Idris Elba. Wait, is he the godzilla? Did they Gollum him up?

Well, if you vouch for it, I'll give it a go._________________I am a Star Wars fan. That doesn't mean that I hate or love Jar Jar. That doesn't mean I hate or love Lucas, or agree or disagree 100% with him. That doesn't mean I prefer the PT over the OT, or vice versa. That doesn't mean I hate the EU, or even love all of it (or even read all of it). These are not prerequisites. Being a man is not a prerequisite. Being a geek is not a prerequisite. The only prerequisite is that I love something about Star Wars. I am a Star Wars fan.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:23 am

Message

Alan Skywalker VMaster

Joined: 10 Apr 2011Posts: 632

Are the Marvel Cinematic Universe films meant to be watched in release order? After seeing Thor the other night, I'm hooked and seriously considering buying all of the MCU films.

Posted: Wed Nov 27, 2013 9:39 am

Message

Taral-DLOSMaster

Joined: 23 Nov 2010Posts: 1943Location: Ontario, Canada

Alan Skywalker V wrote:

Are the Marvel Cinematic Universe films meant to be watched in release order? After seeing Thor the other night, I'm hooked and seriously considering buying all of the MCU films.

I'd say yes, given the fact that the post-credit scenes from one tease what's happening in the next.

But if you don't care about post-credit scenes, then you can just watch all of Phase One in any order as long as it ends with Avengers (and Iron Man 1 before 2, obviously), and then Phase 2 in any order, ending with Avengers 2 (once it's out).

You can choose to watch the Ang Lee Hulk before Iron Man, but Incredible Hulk doesn't follow it strictly (spiritual sequel, but really it's a reboot). "Hulk" isn't in the MCU.

And yes, they're all amazing, though to different levels of amazingness. I had fun with every single one of them, but I'd be lying if I had the same level of fun with each._________________"I'm...from Earth."